I was amused at this report in the context of all the hullabaloo over global warming. None of this changes the insanity of burning away all our fossil fuels at the rate we are doing, but it does show how easily we can go off half cocked not knowing everything. I am still of the opinion that ozone damage and a reduction of our oxygen producing processes is the more important cause for increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (damaging the Earth’s ability to compensate for our excessive production of carbon dioxide). But I have always been skeptical about whether climate changes caused by the carbon dioxide increase are so significant compared to all the other natural variations and causes affecting climate. Another one to look forward to is the threat of a shift in the Earth’s magnetic field.
Is there a link to what you’re referring to? I haven’t been keeping up well with the news lately. Thanks.
I also wanted to ask if anybody knew why there would be any connection to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions? Increased sunspot activity maybe, but why would a reduction of sunspots cause an increase in volcanic eruptions?
Google “solar lockdown” and you can find the source you might prefer for this news.
I certainly don’t claim to know – this is just a quick conjecture… Prolonged and large scale cooling would change seawater densities and ice cover and thickness, thus changing weight distribution on tectonic plates, in turn leading to changed stresses and loads near faults and volcanic fields.
Global Warming is a real threat and we know it is caused mainly by burning fossil fuels, according to the overwhelming majority of climatologists. We have articles on this site on global warming.
I do not dispute there is a problem, but very much doubt that the proposed solutions are going to work. I know that your views are the very politicized popular opinion. But I have never been a tow the party line kind of person. And I am a scientist, so the “because the scientists say so” doesn’t go very far with me, and not all scientists agree. Scientists can be blind due to all kinds of missing factors and information. Just because that isn’t true in the case of evolution doesn’t mean it isn’t the case for climate change. I tend to look at the facts for myself and what I find in this case paints a rather different picture than the popular one: huge variation of climate in nature, an atmosphere which is the product of the biosphere, and a strong correlation between carbon dioxide levels, decline of plankton oxygen production, and the damage to the ozone layer.
That’s not to mention the irreversible positive feedback loops already started caused by thawing tundra and releasing sequestered CO2 and methane, methane being a multiple times worse (on the order of 20x?) greenhouse gas than CO2.
Factor this in, too:
Dimming the Sun
Takeaway: due to sunlight not reflected away because of ice crystal particulate in the upper atmosphere from airliner exhaust, normally pervasive, warming was much faster in the week following 9/11 when planes were grounded worldwide.
Yes. Volcanoes and forest fires have similar effects. But I think there are balancing factors that recover from such events. This is why I think it is the damage to those things which is the more significant problem. The fact that the ozone layer has been damaged also shows that some of the things which human beings put into the air are far more dangerous than carbon dioxide or methane (both of which are produced by nature).
At least the enlargement of the ozone hole was significantly reversed by the largely adopted replacements for fluoridated hydrocarbon refrigerants. Of course, the new ones are worse greenhouse gases. 
Would not be “Skywatch Media News”! It’s big into conspiracy theory, I just discovered – chemtrails, illuminati and all.
When I just googled, the first hit was Snopes, and it looked to be as trustworthy as any of the successive ones.
hell will freeze over !
Raising cattle and other ruminants also release deadly methane into the atmosphere.
Just about 97 percent of climate scientists agree. You can always recruit scientists who question the consensus. Is smoking unhealthy? Depends on who you ask.
The water footprint of cattle is huge.
Yes, they are responsible for a lot of environmental destruction.
There is also a lot of methane leakage from gas and oil wells.
The issue of methane opens up a whole other fascinating dimension of the problem when you investigate how methane is dealt with in the atmosphere. Methane is eliminated from the atmosphere by hydroxyl radicals. And in addition to a holes in the ozone layer we also have holes in the hydroxyl concentrations in the atmosphere which apparently plays a role and precedes the damage to the ozone layer. NASA has been using the hydroxyl method for purifying the air in space vehicles.